| SUBSCRIBE | | Why we charge |
|
|
|
Front Page
news
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Supreme Court Strikes Down 'Millionaire's Amendment'
By Pete Yost
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today struck down the "millionaire's amendment" as an unfair way to help opponents of wealthy political candidates who spend from their personal fortunes.
The law was triggered in several of New Mexico's congressional races in this year's primary. It allows candidates to receive larger campaign contributions when their wealthy opponents spend heavily out of their own pockets.
The court said by a 5-4 vote that the law violates the First Amendment.
The law was challenged by Jack Davis, a New York Democrat who has so far spent nearly $4 million of his own money in two losing campaigns for Congress and says he will spend another $3 million this year.
Davis says the provision in 6-year-old campaign finance reforms unfairly rewards his opponents by letting them exceed campaign fundraising limits simply because Davis dipped into personal funds.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that under the amendment, the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for the opponents of wealthy candidates.
Alito said that if the millionaire's amendment raised the contribution limits for all candidates, Davis's challenge to the law "would plainly fail," raising the question of whether Congress could easily fix what the Supreme Court struck down.
The amendment has come into play in relatively few races. Its most prominent beneficiary so far has been Sen. Barack Obama. He was able to attract additional contributions for his Democratic senatorial primary campaign in Illinois because an opponent spent nearly $29 million of his own money.
In New Mexico, the campaign finance law applied in the Democratic primary contest in the 3rd Congressional District and in the Republican and Democrat races in the 2nd District. In U.S. House races, the law is triggered when self-financed candidates put more than $350,000 of personal money into their campaigns. Other candidates can then accept contributions of $6,900 from individual donors — triple the limit otherwise in place.
Santa Fe developer Don Wiviott spent $1.3 million of his own money but finished second behind Ben Ray Lujan in the June primary election. In the 2nd District, Hobbs oilman Harry Teague spent $687,000 of personal money and won the Democratic nomination. Republican Aubrey Dunn used $537,000 of his own money in the campaign but finished third in a five-way primary.
A co-author of the 2002 federal campaign finance law, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said the Supreme Court decision has no impact on the central component of the reforms, the ban on six-figure political donations to political parties. Feingold co-authored the reforms with Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the court had issued a "confounding decision that takes the First Amendment to an illogical, distorted extreme."
Davis lost in 2004 and 2006 to Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds, who spent more than $5 million in winning re-election two years ago, 51 percent to 49 percent.
Reynolds chose not to solicit increased contributions after Davis triggered the millionaire's amendment. Reynolds is retiring at the end of this term.
The case is Davis vs. Federal Election Commission, 07-320.
Copyright ©2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
E-mail Story
Print Friendly
